Talk:Secret Gospel of Mark

Secrecy

Wetmen -- I enjoyed your inclusion of the information on "secrecy". This article is thought-provoking. Especially when you put "secret Mark" in the context of the Gospel of Mark. Is is possible that the disciple whom "Jesus loved" was either Lazarus, or Mary, the sister of Lazarus?

Of course.. What other context could it be in? I take no credit for the notes by Robert M. Grant, (A Historical Introduction to the New Testament)-- written years before Clement's reference to Secret Mark was found, by the way. Speculations on the identity of the "beloved disciple' are a separate story really. --Wetman 06:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Separate Story? One that needs telling! - Melissa

Your redlinks await: either Beloved Disciple or Beloved disciple, marshalling all the evidence and mentioning the candidates that have been discussed in print. (And let no reader detect what your opinion is!) --Wetman 12:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Got your point. Melissa. By the way, I like the articles you have worked on.(My POV)

Disciple whom Jesus loved needs lots of work! --Wetman 08:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

75.191.151.75 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article

I found this to be an interesting article, although quite controversial. I noted that Johnstone who put the disputed tag up in November 2004 has not done much to improve the article. I (Melissa) have tried to clean it up to meet Wikipedia standards. I hope it meets with Johnstone's approval. However, the article still needs more cleanup. (User:Melissadolbeer)

The recent somewhat blurred edit has "Deleted what seemed irrelevant and POV", according to its Edit Summary.

• "Allegedly written" in the opening sentence: shall we intrude "allegedly written" in Gospel of Mark, which is less likely to have been written by its "alleged" author? Former text carefully read "a letter that presents itself as written." The "allegations" are inherent in the text itself.
• "Privately": "Gospel of Mark that was circulated privately". Why is "privately" suppressed? It is the essential nature of this gospel, as the letter-writer describes it.
• Reaction: "a storm of recrimination, denial and abuse" was too vivid and far too accurate for the censor, who substituted the flaccid cliché "much debate". The reaction in print to the Mar Saba letter clearly needs a much more detailed subsection, with plenty of quotes to give the actual flavor of the abusive recriminations and denial, without characterizing them in any way.
• Suppressed "The controversy is currently unresolved" and substituted a resolution of the debate for Wikipedia's readers: " However, in both cases statistical evidence has been presented that the similarities are too good to be true and suggest a deliberate imitation rather than an authentic work." No use of "allegedly" in this context, one notes. Perhaps our censor will return to her handiwork and take these points into consideration, not invoking "NPOV" but restoring neutrality. Having the tag removed is like losing an abcessed tooth: thank you! --Wetman 13:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wetman, 'abuse' is a strong word. Can you give an example or is it your POV. -Melissa

Just Google any of the salient words-- like Mar Saba Morton Smith Secret Mark-- and read how Morton Smith is accused of incompetency, intellectual dishonesty, fraud, forgery. You'll see why my hair stands on end! --Wetman 08:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suppressing Content

User:Ashibaka suppressed the following text, which I have now restored:

According to the letter, the Secret Gospel of Mark was "a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected" in Egypt. Because of the contents of the Secret Gospel, described below, it has been heavily controversial. On one hand, it clears up some inconsistencies in Mark which are all too mysterious, such as the scantily clad man in Mark 14:51-52, and the abrupt transition in Mark 10:46. On the other hand, it has some elements of a fiction: the backstory which explains the existence of the Secret Gospel, the convienient abrupt ending right before the Secret Gospel is explained, and the sole interjection from the Carpocratians that seems to bring the subtext of the Secret Gospel into the clear.

This utterly relevant and neutral text quotes the document being discussed, explains the controversy (vividly expressed by Ashibaka's suppression of all mention of it) and demonstrates that some text is indeed missing from Mark as we have it in the canonic version. When text is suppressed in this manner, it is a sign that more information needs to be added to the entry. Wetman 23:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. It talks about material being suppressed by Ashibaka and restored by Wetman. But, on the basis of the edit history, the material seems to have been added by Ashibaka and suppressed by Wetman sarban@supanet.com

Don't be misled by "13" (April) and "18" (March). Look at the content and the sequence of these edits in the History... if you have that much empty time. Wetman 20:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Random Inserts

"the shortest version of a story is usually the earliest" is a false statement inserted by Anonymous User 198.208.6.35. The link at Page History will give the edit history of this person. I have set this statement into a context that keeps it from being misleading. Check my edit of today.Wetman 23:02, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This person was me. Charlie Turek magician

---

"The earliest Christian art( 3rd century, this is at least a hundred years after Jesus' time) depicts Jesus holding a wand when performing the miracles of changing water to wine, the multipication of loaves and the raising of Lazarus from the dead. When healing is the miracle, Jesus lays on hands. This art has never been kept in secret." What 3rd century "art" is being referred to here? Is this sheer invention? Wetman 22:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See my review of Morton Smith's book Jesus the Magician on Amazon.com. See my other reviews too. Charlie Turek magician charlesturek@comcast.net

I think Peter is the only apostle with a wand.

What's the connection to the text called Secret Gospel of Mark in this? Please enter relevent information in the entry. Saying "see my review " in the Discussion does not identify a work of art of the 3rd century that is being adduced to prove a point. Relevent information means simply information that is relevent to Secret History of Mark, the subject of this entry.Wetman 18:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disputedness

Okay, this article looks rather rough and connected to a certain theological faction. Look at it: does it deserve a "disputed" label? (NB: entered by Anonymous User:158.38.66.154: click on the link to see the other contributions by the Anonymous User!)

Please identify what you consider "rough" and we will make it plain. We're trying only to get the facts straight. What is this unidentified "certain theological faction"? The "disputed" label has been rendered disreputable precisely by its use as a weapon in this fashion, usually by logged-in users. Wetman 18:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(There was no further response from User:158.38.66.154.)

Jesus the Magician

Anyone interested in entering material on Morton Smith's book Jesus the Magician or on the subject of Jesus as a Hellenistic magician, etc, need only click on the link in the heading and start editing! The subject may be linked in its entry to Secret Gospel of Mark, for aught In know, and to other texts that document a secret history of Jesus as a magician. No need to clutter this Discussion. Wetman 19:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Carpocratians

Shouldn't the prologue that Clement has in his letter before he quotes from the Gospel also be mentioned? I.e. his condemning of the claims that the gospel has the terms "naked man with naked man" ("gymnos gymnos" in Greek) in it. This puts into context exactly what the gospel was perceived to claim and justify by the Carpocrations, and why Clement quotes the passages to attempt to counter the claim. --81.156.179.151 19:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed it should: any text that throws light directly on the lost Secret Mark is relevant to the entry. --Wetman 00:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration

I have edited the text of the entry on Secret Mark to show that the Greek for "naked man with naked man" ought to be transliterated as "gymnon gymno." The two words are not identical; rather the first is in the accusative case while the second is dative to suggest "with." The first "o" in "gymnon" is an omicron while the final "o" in "gymno" is an omega. In transliteration, the latter should be an "o" with a line over it, but I don't know how to do that either in Word or html. Milesnfowler 16:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I modified the transliteration as you suggested. Below the edit box there are a number of special characters which one can click to insert into the text. Michael Slone 19:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality

I came to this article after reading a section in the Jesus page. I think we ought to put into the article the conclusions that Morton Smith made (or was claimed to make) about Jesus' Sexuality from the text, and why this lead to his discovery of the text for a long time being very controversial. --81.156.179.151 19:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Conclusions that Morton Smith was "claimed to make" don't need encyclopedia treatment, revealing as they are of his detractors' mindset and techniques. A quote from Morton Smith about whatever sexual content might have been in the spiritually transforming experience Jesus was apparently offering is apropos, however. Care to find one? --Wetman 01:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are a few quotable sections on this in Morton Smith's book Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel of Mark. I am afraid I don't have a copy to hand, or its ISBN number.

I think it is important that some of his detractors complaints also be included (I don't know where to find quotes for these), so that the article shows the level of controversy which surrounded the discovery of the gospel, and why it arose. 217.150.114.18 15:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, when you have time... --Wetman 16:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cutting apart

I think the article is too long in its present form to be readable. Could it be split into sections, e.g. discovery, content, interpretation?CheeseDreams 20:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not nearly so long as the entry Pokemon, which may be a more gripping subject. This entry is a connected text on a coherent subject, providing some context. Not everyone is daunted by a couple of thousand words of text. --Wetman 20:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something similar to what CheeseDreams suggested. In no particular order: the background about the letter, the forgery controversy, and what the letter says about the Secret Gospel. Stuff about Morton Smith and his book should go in separate articles, but may merit being linked here. (Smith, as the discoverer; his book, only if it is primarily an exegesis of what the letter tells us.) I'm tempted to cut it up right now, but there are some redundancies and other problems that are going to make it more than a few minutes' work to do right. — B.Bryant 21:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The entry subject here, let us not forget, is Secret Gospel of Mark. The "background about the letter" is relevant to the entry Mar Saba Letter, and should be mentioned and linked here; the forgery controversy belongs in one place: here has been the sensible choice; the Mar Saba letter would be another sensible choice, butthe controversy should be already linked from Mar Saba letter and from Morton Smith. "Stuff about Morton Smith" belongs in his bio, of course. "Redundancies" however are rife in Wikipedia: each article needs to be complete, so information does get repeated that appears in another context elsewhere. Not knowing anything about a somewhat contentious subject is most certainly "going to make it more than a few minutes' work to do right."

A sure sign of an educated person is a sense of the limitations of our competence. As we approach our boundaries, modesty might take up the slack where self-confidence naturally fails. To the wise, a word is sufficient. --Wetman 00:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Morton Smith article stubbed. --Bastique 04:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say there that he translated excerpts of it? All we have of it is a few bits quoted in the letter, right? — B.Bryant 06:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right. A complete Clement letter, with the excerpts of Secret Mark it contains. --Wetman 08:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Has the original book ever been made available?

As far as I can tell, the original book with the transcriptions was never made available for critical examination, at least through the late 1990's. Therefore, I've added several "alleged"'s to the article.--Johnstone 03:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The letter of Clement's has been printed. What "book" is User:Johnstone imagining? Don't just sprinkle entries with "alleged," if you are too lazy to look into the subject first. --Wetman 04:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In looking into this subject, before editing, I encountered the following at http://www.gnosis.org/library/secm_commentary.htm, which is presently the last external link in the article:

"What Smith then began photographing was a three-page handwritten addition penned into the endpapers of a printed book, Isaac Voss' 1646 edition of the Epistolae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris. It identified itself as a letter by Clement of the Stromateis, i.e., Clement of Alexandria, the second-century church father well-known for his neo-platonic applications of Christian belief....

"Inevitably a document which is so controversial as Secret Mark will be accused of being a forgery. This is precisely what happened in 1975... Foremost is the lack of the physical manuscript. Smith left the manuscript in the tower at Mar Saba in 1958 and had been working with his set of photographs ever since....

"Quesnell calls into question all of Smith's efforts to date the manuscript to the eighteenth century. Although Smith consulted many paleographic experts, Quesnell feels this information to be useless as compared to a chemical analysis of the ink, and a microscopic examination of the writing. Then he asks the 'unavoidable next question': was the letter of Clement a modern forgery?....

"Quesnell's arguments were still echoed in 1983 by Per Beskow, who wrote that Smith "can only present some mediocre photographs, which do not even cover the entire margins of the manuscript....

"In Thomas Talley's 1982 article on ancient liturgy, he describes his own attempt to physically examine the Secret Mark manuscript. As his is the last word on the physical artifact in question, it is fortuitous to quote him at length: 'My own attempts to see the manuscript in January of 1980 were frustrated, but as witnesses to its existence I can cite the Archimandrite Meliton of the Jerusalem Greek Patriarchate who, after the publication of Smith's work, found the volume at Mar Saba and removed it to the patriarchal library, and the patriarchal librarian, Father Kallistos, who told me that the manuscript (two folios) has been removed from the printed volume and is being repaired.'...

The "book," is the printed volume, Epistolae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris, specifically the endpapers with the manuscript. It appears that it has never been made available for examination. Can you provide any references that state that it has?--Johnstone 02:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Talley's remarks need to be quoted in the entry, don't they. --Wetman 02:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talley's remarks would be a good addition, as well as statements that:

• the original has not been made available. (My $0.02: Arguments from authority are no substitute for physical analysis.)
• numerous scholars believe that it is likely a forgery, even Smith's professor (Arthur Darby Nock), and [at least one of] his students (Jacob Neusner, who called it "the forgery of the century"), etc.
• Smith's interpretation of the content was and is controversial.

And, of course, the word "alleged" should be inserted where appropriate.--Johnstone 00:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone imagine that the original will ever be seen again? Doesn't everyone realize how extremely unusual it is to remove endpapers from a printed book, under the rubric of "repairs"? Is anyone taken in by Johnstone's disingenuous remark about "arguments from authority"? Is this not classic Christianist cult behavior?

User:Johnstone has applied an NPOV label to this article. --Wetman 10:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm offended that User:Wetman has accused me of being disingenuous. His use of the loaded, prejudiced phrase "classic Christianist cult behavior" is also offensive. The remark in question expresses my genuine sentiment. Regardless of how or why it has not been made available for analysis, this is nonetheless a fact, and I simply communicated my opinion that arguments from authority (such as Talley's reference to the Archimandrite and librarian as "witnesses to its existence") would be a poor basis upon which to argue that the document is genuine, and that physical analysis would be the best method to determine this. Even though there are many things suggesting that the manuscript was a forgery (for example, see http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=2599&cat=7), if it really did exist and was permanently hidden or destroyed by the Archimandrite and librarian, it would be wrong. Again, if it hasn't already happened, whoever has it should make the document available for analysis, so that it can "speak" for itself. Truth is good.--Johnstone 01:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Offended"! Preposterous!--Wetman 04:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although an increasing number scholars are beginning to think that something is wrong about the discovery of Secret Mark (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities), please be aware Alden Bass in the linked Apologetics Press article certainly exaggerates his case when he stated that "most scholars believe it to have been a fraud." He also incorrectly listed Scott Brown for supporting the idea that Clement's letter is a forgery--Brown actually argues that, though Secret Mark was written after canonical Mark, both of them were written by the same person. --scc 03:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to Charles E. Hedrick and Nikolaos Olympiou, "Secret Mark: New Photographs, New Witnesses," Fourth R 13, no. 5 (September/October 2000): 3-16, the Mar Saba manuscript, which had been separated from the book for photographing, has probably been misfiled somewhere in the fairly disorganized Patriarchal library. Fortunately, the new 1970s-era photographs have been located and published. --scc 03:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Misfiled!" Endpapers removed from a bound printed book, and then misfiled. This embarrassing letter of Clement of Alexandria has been misfiled, we are to believe! And the letter itself is being called a fake! --Wetman 04:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read Charlie's article. He's been to the library and knows the librarians and their procedures, so his optimism that it may turn up again some day has some factual basis--at least a lot more than what either one of us has. --scc 21:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

mentioning the controversy

I think the fundamental issue is that at least a large minority of scholars, rightly or wrongly, do consider the Mar Saba letter to be a modern (18th or 20th century) forgery.

For the sake of neutrality this should be made clear in the main article, although it is probably legitimate to say that most scholars regrd it as a genuine letter of Clement.

This article is already rather long and would probably not be improved by a detailed discussion of the technical arguments pro and con authenticity.

All that is necessary is a clear brief statement that the authenticity of the letter is a matter of scholarly dispute.

sarban@supanet.com

It certainly should be mentioned. But the bases for doubt should be briefly and colorlessly mentioned too (by someone sympathetic), as they are also quite revealing of agendas, without any overt commentary required. --Wetman 03:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've written an account as neutrally as possible. I'm worried it is too long but if we're to mention the arguments for and against authenticity at all I'm not sure it can be any shorter.

sarban@supanet.com

Thanks for addition to the article. I think it is a fair summation. One question though: when you say that a majority of scholars accept the Mar Saba letter as being of Clement, do you mean Clement scholars in particular or any scholar with an interest in Secret Mark? --scc 18:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Stephen C. Carlson)

I meant any scholar with an interest in the matter although I suspect the answer would be the same anyway. AFAIK Osborn is the only really major Clement scholar to have said in print that the work is not authentic.

sarban@supanet.com

Osborn is about as major as they get, though. Ursula Treu included it in the GSC edition "provisionally" to spur discussion, but I think Robert M. Grant is more optimistic about its authenticity. My general sense of active Clement scholars is that, if they mention it at all, they usually note that its authenticity is disputed, and few articles really depend on what is in it. Also, as you must certainly know, some good Clement scholars have taken positions in print questioning the letter's authenticity (e.g. Criddle 1995, Jakab 1999). --scc 21:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given that the major reason for putting the NPOV disputed label up has (IMHO IIUC etc) been largely dealt with, would it be appropriate to remove the label ??

sarban@supanet.com

Whether Authenticity Depends on a Series of Unlikelihoods

The Wikipedia article mentions part of what I think is one of the strongest and most interesting argument against Secret Mark's authenticity as the "real", "spiritual", or "original" version of canonical Mark when Wikipedia says: "Pierluigi Piovanelli is suspicious about the letter's authenticity as he thinks it is “the wrong document, at the wrong place, discovered by the wrong person, who was, moreover, in need of exactly that kind of new evidence to promote new, unconventional ideas”." It would be helpful to hear more what Piovanelli meant. For me, the series of unlikelihoods or at least coincidences required for "Secret Mark's" authenticity include that:

(A) An alleged early Christian ritual practice - private gnostic-style instruction involving possibly disrobing and in my reading of the passage, homosexual activity - that was unknown or very rarely known until M. Smith's 20th c. discovery, was related in

(B) a gospel version (Secret Mark) that was unknown or very rarely known until the 20th c. discovery; the gospel version being related in

(C) a Second century Letter by a self-identified Clement of Alexandria (a "Pseudo-Clement" being also known in Church literature), unknown to the public until M. Smith's 20th century discovery, addressed to

(D) "Theodore" a Second century Christian leader (since he was able to take measures against the heretical version of "Secret Mark"), whose identity is unknown today; the letter being preserved

(E) in a flawless 18th century copy, which was unknown until Smith's 20th c. discovery, and which had been made in

(F) the back of a 17th century book of Ignatius' epistles, a book missing from lists of Mar Sabas' books catalogued before the mid-20th c. discovery and first catalogued by

(G) Morton Smith, a professor whose research had already linked topics also found in the Letter, eg. "the Kingdom of God", Mark's gospel, secretive early Christian rituals, and Clement of Alexandria. (Smith's articles being titled: "Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels", "Comments on Taylor's Commentary on Mark", "The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism, with Especial Reference to Goodenough's Work on Jewish Symbols"), and who went on to write the book "Jesus the Magician", which like the seeming secretive sexual practices in Secret Mark, would tend to be unsettling or embarrassing for traditional modern-day Christians. The description for Smith's book "Jesus the Magician" on Google says: This book challenges traditional Christian teaching about Jesus. While his followers may have seen him as a man from heaven, preaching the good news and working miracles, Smith asserts that the truth about Jesus is more interesting and rather unsettling. (https://books.google.com/books?id=_XxaBQAAQBAJ&dq=%22morton+smith%22+homosexual+OR+homosexuality+magician&source=gbs_navlinks_s) Rakovsky (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(A) and (B) are covered in the article. Regarding (C), the letter is not self-identified by Clement of Alexandria. The first line is a heading added by someone else at a later stage – the letter was possibly part of a collection as there obviously was a collection of at least 21 letters of Clement in Mar Saba in the 8th c. (also covered in the article). Regarding (D), there were, of course, a lot of Christians in those days that we’re unaware of. Nevertheless, Michael T. Zeddies has identified the author as Origen, not Clement (as apart from the later added heading, the letter does not reveal its author), and it so happens to be that Origen had a disciple named Theodore (known as Gregory Thaumaturgus). Anyway, although Zeddies’ theory is not included, the objection (D) is also covered in the article. (E) is covered in the article. The point (F) is missing from the article and should perhaps be added, although it plays no major part in the debate pro and con anymore. There was a list made in 1910 with 191 book titles and where the Vossius book was not included. But the list was incomplete. For instance, did Smith in his incomplete listing list 489 books. Accordingly, most books in the library were not included in the 1910 list and so the fact that the Vossius book was missing actually says nothing. The library was a total mess with books spread all over the place. And the point (G) is covered in the article. Roger Viklund (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. (F) is significant. The absence of Vossius' book from the 1910 cataloguing of 191 of the library's few hundred books tends to suggest that the book was not present in the library in 1910. If you know that your car is in one of two parking lots (Lot #1910 and Lot #1958), and you do a survey that covers 40% of the first lot and don't find your car there, then your search makes it 20% more likely that your car is in the second lot. This is because the Percent unsearched in Lot #1958 minus the Percent searched in Lot #1910 = 100% ÷ 2 - 60% ÷ 2 = 80%. Hence it's more likely that the book was introduced into the library after 1910, like during Morton Smith's 1958 cataloguing and "discovery." Rakovsky (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

When you combine the unlikelihoods together necessary for Secret Mark to be real, it becomes even more unlikely than any one of those unlikelihoods alone. Rakovsky (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, both the assumptions and the math are incorrect. We simply don’t know the number of books in the library. In the late 19th century (in 1857, 1864 and 1887) a large number of books (thousands) were transferred from Mar Saba to the Patriarchate Library in Jerusalem. In 1910, a list of 191 books, then presumably present in the tower library, was put together. Smith referred to 489 books in the tower library during his stay in 1958. Then at that time, there were at least 489 books in the library, but there could have been more. Smith never claimed to have listed all the books (his preserved notes end with item 489) but he estimated the number of books to between 400 and 500. There was also a second library, not included, the so-called Chapel Library. Further, we don’t know if books were added or removed in the time between 1910 and 1958, and if so, how many. Even if we would make the unjustified assumption that Smith listed all books and that no books had been added or removed in the 48 years between 1910 and 1958, only 191 of the 489 books presumably present in 1910 were included in the list and 298 books were unreported. That is, 61 percent of the books would not have been included in the list made in 1910 and consequently, it would have been more likely that the Vossius book had not been included in the 1910 list. But since everything is guesswork, no math can be done. Roger Viklund (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

20th century text discoveries

I've replaced the remark

"Starting with the Dead Sea Scrolls, textual discoveries in the later 20th century revealed a new understanding of the broadly divergent oral traditions and parallel texts..."

With this more accurate and inclusive review:

"Starting with the recovery of the Didache, the papyri from Oxyrhyncus, the Nag Hammadi library and the Dead Sea Scrolls, textual discoveries through the 20th century revealed a new understanding of the broadly divergent oral traditions and parallel texts..."

I don't imagine this will raise a fury, but you never know... --Wetman

The part you changed is now pretty good. I have little idea what "broadly divergent oral traditions and parallel texts" is supposed to mean, though. scc 09:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cross-ref to Assorus Tablet

I moved this from the main text, because it is dubious (see discussion on the Assorus Tablet page. scc 09:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Assorus Tablet supposedly discovered in November 2004 may contain further Secret Markan material.

I second that. Most dubious indeed. The story will doubtless unravel in 2005, perhaps amusingly. --Wetman 10:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Confused Article

Questionable neutrality isn't this article's only problem. The text gets into issues of evidence for and against the Secret Gospel of Mark before it even hints at what the Secret Gospel is, somewhere around the 7th or 8th paragraph. I think some restructuring of the article is called for, with a clear and encyclopedic introductory paragraph that avoids charged expressions like "provoked a storm of recrimination, denial and abuse". It is annoying to have to read nearly half the article before figuring out precisly what the article is talking about. func(talk) 01:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So move the controversy down to the end. --Wetman 02:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

uh

"Defenders of authenticity claim: a) Analysis of the handwriting shows that the manuscript dates from the 18th century. "

that would be evidence against authenticity, right? - Omegatron 05:47, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's not in Clement's very own handwriting. There is a distinction between authenticity of text and the authenticity of a manuscript. Manuscripts are generally much later than the origin of the text. In this case a previously unknown letter of Clement, definitely not meant for publication as an "epistle," survived to be copied into the flyleaf of a printed book, which was in the library at Mar Saba, where it was discovered. The book has now been hidden from sight, but but was photographed first, and now all is said to be "doubted", especially the honesty of the scholar who published this awkward piece of documentation. Is that unclear in the entry? Several people have been working hard to make it so.... --Wetman 06:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's unclear to someone who's not immersed in this stuff. It says "critics claim it is a forgery from the 18th or 20th century. defenders of authenticity say it looks like it could be from the 18th." this seems a contradiction. - Omegatron 16:16, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Intentional obscurity. Note how "critics" are not identified, --Wetman 00:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There should be an explanation both at the entry about Secret Mark (there is now) and the Mar Saba letter explaining this situation. Smith's guess--based on historical knowledge of a fire in the Mar Saba library in the 18th century--was that the orignal letter was badly damaged and that an 18th century monk copied by hand what was left of it into the back of a printed book. This does create a serious problem: even if the document could be found and tested, it would only prove that it was written in the 18th century; this would absolve Smith of charges that he forged it but not that it was someone else's forgery. In such a case, however, one of several points in favor of authenticity would be that the letter's "imitation" of both Markan and Clementine vocabulary is so good that it could only have been faked by someone with 20th century knowledge of both of these vocabularies. An 18th century forger would not have had such knowledge; hence, proof that the text photographed by Smith was written over two hundred years ago would strengthen the case for authenticity if not prove it conclusively.

By the way, whoever wrote the comment below about John being written and printed "last year" clearly has tongue firmly in cheek. If offered to prove a point by being ridiculous, it has succeeded at being ridiculous, but the point? It would be fair to say that the Gospel of John does run into problems because the earliest known fragment and the earliest known complete text are obviously copies, but, more than that, we have the last two verses of John (21:24-25) speaking of John in the third person; someone other than the author(s) of most of the text wrote these final words, reminding us of the absense of a modern sense of respect for the integrity of any text-as-written among early Christian copyists. Milesnfowler 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The Gospel of John is clearly a forgery. It isn't in John's own handwriting. Someone wrote it on a typewriter and printed it last year.

misuse of anathema in 'Interpretation' section

Use of the word "anathema" is misleading. Taken from the Wikipedia entry for "Anathema" [After the time of the apostolic church, the term anathema has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction beyond excommunication.] Perhaps using 'heretical' or 'contrary'.

Morton Smith as the forger

Is there much good evidence for other suspected forgers besides Smith? The subversive elements in Secret Mark are subtle, unlike Smith's conclusions. He thought Jesus was a wand-waving magician with a ressurrected boyfriend; I don't think this is implied at all in the text. If he was the forger, you'd think he'd have included better evidence for his claims. Not that I know very much about this, but it seems to if the document was a fake, it was made by someone less sensational than Morton Smith.--Cuchullain 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Read Carlson's book. He shows that there are two jokes in the story that Smith placed there so people would eventually know he himself wrote it. The first is a reference to free-flowing salt, a concept which didn't exist until the 20th century and was invented by the Morton Salt Co. The second is the name of a Greek monk, but his name doesn't actually exist in Greek and is a made-up name based on a word that can mean both "baldy" (Smith lost his hair infamously early) or swindler (as Smith did with this all). Carlson does mention how Smith used Secret Mark in his own studies, which is a little more complicated than you say. CRCulver 04:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Carlson's book is not an ideal source for the Secret Gospel of Mark, and in any case you misrepresent his arguments. There is no reference to "free-flowing" salt in the letter ascribed to Clement; the text speaks rather of salt that has lost its savor. The name that Carlson finds suspicious does not occur in the text of the letter at all, or even in the book in which the letter is copied; it is written on the title page of another Mar Saba book altogether. For a good evaluation of Carlson's book, see the recent review by Scott G. Brown, in the Harvard Theological Review, vol. 99, p. 291ff. ECKnibbs 17:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Brown's review of Carlson in Harvard Theological Review isn't available through JSTOR. Could ECKnibbs add to the article a concise summary, with a <ref></ref> reference? Or does it belong at Morton Smith, since it's his posthumous reputation set at stake? Or both. --Wetman 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion of forgery belongs here, though of course some mention on the Morton Smith page wouldn't hurt. I'll add a bit on Brown's review of Carlson by the end of the week. ECKnibbs 14:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added very breief summary of some of Carlson's evidence in the section on authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beretta NZ (talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Issue of Chiasms & Removed Section

I removed the following section:

[Not so, according to author John Dart who in his 2005 book "Decoding Mark" lays to rest any conceivable doubt of Secret Mark's authenticity by unveiling a matrix of chiastic codes embedded within the pages of the gospel of Mark. Secret Mark fits neatly back into Original Mark where it had obviously been omited. The young man naked before Jesus is none other than the beloved disciple, Lazarus, not John, as is the popular misconception.]

It even included the brackets. The wording does not seem to adhere to a neutral point of view. It needs to be reworded, and the argument spelled out a little better, probably with some links and citations. Wje 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There are also some factual mistakes; for example, John Dart's book was published in 2003. Less enthusiastic reviews are found on-line in the Review of Biblical Literature. Stephen C. Carlson 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For me, the topic of Chiasms is one of the most interesting for Secret Mark's authenticity, because I think that Mark's gospel does use chiasms as a hidden structure. I think that the Wikipedia article should include scholars' counterarguments that the chiasm alleged by Dart due to Secret Mark is mistaken. Lincoln Blumell writes in his book review of Dart's book: " I disagree with him completely that the reason no one else has found the ìmacro-chiasmî in Mark is because scholars are too busy with administrative duties and other responsibilities to spend time doing ìunconventionalî research on the Gospel. Rather, I would suggest that no one else has found the ìmacro-chiasmî in Mark because when Mark is subjected to rigorous scholarly investigation this theory falls apart."(SOURCE: https://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4063_3928.pdf) Rakovsky (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

POV, Original Research Issues, and Splitting

I think this needs to be split into two articles: one on the Letter of Saba, and one on the Secret Gospel. As it is, the discussion of the two is intertwined and it's hard to tell at some points which text is being discussed.

There is a lot of emphasis on the controversiality of the contents. I've cut some of this out but I think more ought to go.

A lot of this sounds like original analysis. Mangoe 17:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

splitting the article

In trying to sort things out I've decided that it's necessary to split out the material about the letter from the material about the secret gospel. Therefore I've replaced the redirect on Mar Saba letter with material from this page. All the material about the letter and its authenticity will go to that page, and all the discussion of the gospel excerpts will remain here. Mangoe 00:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've completed spltting the articles. (Sorry I took so long.) There is still some clean up needed on the references.Mangoe 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hint needs details

A much improved article. The following needs to have specific details added to it, because in its present form it does not actually transmit information, only hints: "Several further echoes of Secret Mark are identifiable in the canonic Mark, according to textual analysts." --Wetman 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Gospel of Thomas

I've restored the comparison with the Gospel of Thomas. It is true that the Oxyrhynchus finds predated those at Nag Hammadi, but identification of the former was predicated on the latter find. Mangoe 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK: I've changed the text to get rid of the erroneous implication that the Oxyrynchus fragments were "another work": there is no indication that they were. Grover cleveland 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's try a combined version. Mangoe 17:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole comparison should be tossed, or at least re-worded. Secret Mark is not at all in the same position as Thomas was prior to finding manuscript copies; to say so is to say that we have multiple, early, undisputed references to the existence of Secret Mark. Which is obviously false. We have a single, disputed transcription of an undated source. 64.234.1.144 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Bethune article

Please could someone familiar with this article fix up the final section of the article to make it comprehensible and verifiable? Thanks, Grover cleveland 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Clement Letter" and "Secret Gospel" are an 18th century put-on

How can anyone doubt it? Surely both these documents were written by an eighteenth-century monk. He wrote it as a joke, not even with the intention of deceiving anyone but simply to amuse himself, and the whole thing's gotten out of hand.

When I visited India, I came across Hindu and Jain monks who did nothing all the time but memorize texts. They sometimes amused themselves by writing imitations and parodies of the stuff they were memorizing, and these imitations would be indistinguishable (on literary grounds) from the original books themselves. They did it just for something to do.

There were Christian monks in the same situation, and one of them wrote the Clement Letter and the Secret Gospel as a lark. There's no doubt it's full of local in-jokes we'll never understand, and tongue-in-cheek stuff about "particular friendship."

When Smith first came across this stuff, scholars said it absolutely had to be authentic. Why? Because nobody, according to them, could have done such a fine imitation of Clement's style prior to the publication of the big-time glossary of Clement that hadn't come out yet. Now, isn't that ridiculous? A monk who spent huge amounts of his time memorizing and copying Clement couldn't do a keen imitation of Clement's style?

This eighteenth-century monk, whatever world he's in now, is probably laughing himself silly over the stir he made with a little snippet he tossed off in his spare time. Tom129.93.17.174 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All very interesting, but without reference to reliable sources this is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Grover cleveland 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction between articles

This article says "the copy that Morton is alleged to have discovered has been seen by nobody other than Smith. After the alleged discovery, the document disappeared from Mar Saba, the only evidence being photographs taken by Smith, at least one of which shows Smith's initials written on the page. The ink and fiber was never subjected to examination."

Mar Saba letter says "In 1976 a group of four scholars[3] visited Mar Saba, viewed the manuscript, and took color photographs of it. This visit remained unknown until 2003 when one of the party, G.A.G. Stroumsa, published an account of the visit.[4] In 1977 the volume containing the manuscript was taken to the library of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem. That same year, the manuscript pages were removed from the bound volume by the librarian Kallistos Dourvas, to be photographed and kept separately. These photographs were published in 2000. Subsequent attempts by scholars to view the manuscript have been unsuccessful."

This is a blatant contradiction. I note that one of the articles has a source for the relevant text - and it is not this article. So this article needs to be revised on at least this point. GRBerry 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the controversy by adding a brief history of the MSS. Feel free to add refs as needed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: restoring 'Ancient Christianity'

It is not clear to me why Carlaude removed the 'Ancient Christianity' category. Secret Gospel of Mark is a disputed document. Many scholars support its authenticity, so this should be reflected in the article. Since '20th-century Christian texts' is among the categories already, NPOV demands that either this should also be removed, or the 'Ancient Christianity' category be included. --Dyuku (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixing the remaining problems with this article

I removed the section "The theory of a "secret initiation"", and tried to fix up the rest of the problematic parts. The section was quite confusing; it wasn't quite clear what its argument was. This stemmed in part from the problems with Bethune's article on which the argument relied. I've cut some unreferenced material, and rewrote what remained, trying to make some sense of it. So now the "Refimprove" tag can be removed. Dyuku (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of "the cry"

This edit by User:Dylanstephens is problematic.

This is what Dylanstephens added to the article:

"The significant words: 'And straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb' was dismissed by Morton Smith in his Secret Gospel pg 55 as 'the scream of Death, a demon about to be robbed of its prey'. If this letter does represent at least the true writings of a version of Mark that Mark had from Peter, this "cry" has a greater significance. The logical conclusion should be be that Lazarus was not dead, but merely symbolically dead i.e. defrocked. This lends credence to the theory that all miracles were symbolic."

But there's a problem with logic and clarity here. It's really difficult to see how "a great cry being heard from the tomb" can lead to the conclusion that "all miracles were symbolic".

So I invite Dylanstephens please to explain what he meant, or to clarify his addition. Otherwise, his contribution may be removed. Dyuku (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger Viklund

The repeatedly re-added paragraph on Roger Viklund is going to require further discussion before it can be included. Specifically, the source given is to a blog, which is not a reliable source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, Cuchullain, I see what you mean about Viklund. But my revision went well beyond that one sentence about Viklund, so there was no need to reverse the whole edit. Just take out that one sentence about Viklund if you object to his stuff. Dyuku (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of BRD, if you get a revert, it's best to head to the talk page and discuss the matter, not to revert back. At any rate, Viklund was the real problem, since the source given was a blog; some of your wording changes were further based on that paragraph being there ("Still more recently..."). I've removed those again pending discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Irenaeus mentions Secret Mark in Against Heresies, why is there no mention of Irenaeus speaking of this document in the article?"

^I don't know who wrote the above section title, but Stephen Huller claimed that Irenaeus knew of Secret Mark in this article: "Irenaeus Knew that Details of Secret Mark" http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2009/11/day-of-recompense-as-fulfillment-of.html Rakovsky (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, Stephan is not the only person to argue that people knew about Secret Mark. Yuri Kuchinsky suggested that two fourteenth-century Coptic sources by Abu-'l-Barakat and the tenth-century writing by Macarius show knowledge of Secret Mark (Thomas Talley in support of Secret Mark). I have even myself in an article co-written with David Blocker highlighted the close similarities between the information in Secret Mark where Jesus is said to have spent the night in Bethany teaching the disciples about the Kingdom of God and the 14th century Hebrew treatise Even Bohan by Shem-Tob ben Shaprut (A Fourteenth Century Text in which Jesus Taught the Kingdom of God During the Night at Bethany) The only published attempt to show that Secret Mark was known in Ancient time, that I am aware of, is made by Konstantinos Spanoudakis. In Spanoudakis, Konstantinos (2017), "The Staphylus Episode. Nonnus and the Secret Gospel of Mark", in Bannert, Herbert; Kröll, Nicole (eds.), Nonnus of Panopolis in Context II: Poetry, Religion, and Society, Leiden & Boston: Brill, pp. 216–251, ISBN 978-90-04-34119-7 he argues that “it looks as though Nonnus uses the precedent in the SGM (for him perhaps a version of the Lazarus story) as a subtext to construe part of the Staphylus/Botrys episode”. None of these attempts shows parallels that are strong enough to prove that SGM is authentic, especially regarding an issue of such great dispute. And further, the arguments are not so easy to explain. So, I have not (yet) included anything in the Secret Mark article about this, but thought that maybe Spanoudakis’ article could be included. Roger Viklund (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of idiomatic modern ENglish should be noted

The use of the phrase "And he remained with him that night" (as well as other idiomatic phrases) suggests that the text was composed in modern English and then translated into Greek. That should be highlighted in the article. Overall, this article (in my opinion, falsely) suggests that the weight of scholarship is on the side of Smith; globally, it is almost universally rejected as a modern forgery by biblical scholars outside of the USA (and even there only a single faction supports it). The article needs to be substantially rewritten to reflect the _true_ scholarly consensus rather than that of a few partisans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.110.134 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman and Removals in 2011

This edit removed sourced material. The paragraph attributed to Bart Ehrman is certainly appropriate and about as neutral as it could be. Additionally, a passage indicating that most scholars believe this is a hoax was removed. A discussion on how to improve neutrality is welcome, but these changes did not improve the article.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the original source actually state that "most mainstream scholars today ... regard the discovery as a hoax"? Or is that a POV addition? It seems to me that this argument/conclusion belongs down in the authenticity section, not something this specific up top. Maybe just mention here that there's debate, or something along those lines, with the details below. Macduff (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The source is quite emphatic that the scholarly consensus is that this is a hoax, probably perpetrated by Smith himself. You can read it here, but no page numbers. The editors are Biblical scholars Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov. If the consensus really is that it's a hoax, that would assuredly be relevant to the lead, though the details should be in the article body.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful pointer to the book. I think you're being somewhat generous though by describing the authors as "biblical scholars". Evans is an academic at the Academa University in Nova Scotia, Canada - an institution according to its website "with strong connections to the Baptist religious community". Are we certain that this source is neutral? Thi aside Evans actually admits that "many scholars have accepted the Clementine letter as genuine and the validity of its testimony that there was in circulation a secret version of the Gospel of Mark."

Cúchullain is correct. The article should reflect modern sources since Smith died (this is relevant because publishers of scholars like Per Beskow were threatened with being sued by Smith when he was alive) so the "scholarly discussion" was somewhat skewed. Also all other sources should be dated in the text, "F F Bruce (1972) said " etc., given what is now known. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Red herring. You can only be sued in historical discourse if you say something disparaging or libellous. There was nothing to stop Per Beskow from giving his opinion as an academic. But I agree the more modern sources we use the better. But what do we know dfferently since Morton's death? There are a lot of pseudo-academic works that focus on this as part of a broader list of conspiract theories. We should dismiss those works. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My worry at the moment is that this article tries very hard to demonstrate that the Mar Saba letter was a forgery. In fact too hard. I'm not convinced yet that there is a consensus that the document is forged. I am carrying out some research on the various academic studies done in this area and will feed back my thoughts shortly. Certainly the more important questions are not whether Morton forged it but rather whether it is a medival forgery; is written by Clement of pseudo-Clement; and whether it tells us anything useful at all about the historical Jesus. At the moment we are relying too heavily on writers (and not always academics) who seem embarassed at some supposed homoerotic interpretation. The paragraph suggesting that Morton Smith (who was a distinguished historian at Columbia Unversity) forged the letter because he himself was gay is pretty undignified and a bit cheap for an encyclopaedia such as wikipedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's much room to argue that Evans and Tov are not Biblical scholars or reliable sources. Both have advanced degrees in this field, and currently work and publish in it. And despite how you parse it, the book's clear conclusion is that most scholars regard this as a hoax, with Smith being the likely perpetrator. Additionally, there is absolutely no call to remove the Ehrman material, as you've now done three times without explanation or consensus. As I already stated, it is relevant and neutral, and obviously comes from a reliable source. The suggestion that Smith had a motive to add this material because he was gay is notable; the passage quite plainly says that "this may not be relevant", though there is plenty of other evidence of forgery.

I'm not convinced that your rearrangements of material are an improvement. It makes it very difficult to tell what else you've changed or removed. I'll review them more closely when I am able.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect I'm not particularly concerned whether or not you think my changes are an improvement. I think they are clearly an improvement on what was there both (a tangle of poorly drafted insinuations) and that is sufficient for me. I've read the Evans passage several times and he states clearly that many scholars believe it to be genuine - perhaops you would furnish me with the passage where he says that everyone thinks it a hoax? I've nevertheless left in references to Evans and Tov - although I have myself a low opinion of the institutions where they teach, and fear that religious bias must inevitably creep in. But I shall give the benefit of the doubt in this case. Leave in the Ehrman quote if you're strongly attached to it but I can't help thinking it's lazy scholarship. I have no idea what gay plot you think Moreton Smith was trying to achieve?Contaldo80 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edit contain your third revert of cited material within the last 24 hours, despite repeated objections and WP:BRD. I'm assuming good faith that you won't do it again and will participate in discussion before making any more major changes.

On Evans and Tov, the very next paragraph after the one you quoted contains the relevant material. The quote: "The sad thing is that all this labor has been misspent; the Clementine letter and the quotations of Secret Mark embedded within it constitute a modern hoax, and Morton Smith almost certainly is the hoaxer. Several scholars have for years suspected this to be the case, but the recently published clear, color photographs of the document have given experts in the science of forgery detection the opportunity to analyze the document's handwriting and compare it with samples of handwriting from the late Professor Smith. The evidence is compelling and conclusive: Smith wrote the text." He then lists evidence from Stephen Carlson and Peter Jeffrey, and concludes "The upshot of the whole matter is that Smith's Mar Saba Clementine is almost certainly a hoax and Smith is almost certainly the hoaxer. No research into the Gospels and the historicity of Jesus should take Smith's document seriously."
So, our wording isn't quite right. First, the similarity to the Mystery of Mar Saba novel isn't the only piece of evidence for forgery, and Evans and Tov are clear that there was much more room for debate prior to the publication of the color photographs in 2000. Perhaps we should say something like, "Subsequent study, including handwriting analysis of higher quality color photographs of the document first published in 2000, revealed more possible evidence of forgery, leading scholars such as [Evans, Tov, etc] to conclude the work is a hoax, with Smith being the most likely perpetrator.[pp. 270-272]" Then, we can add the less decisive view of Bart Ehrman: "However, while an increasing number of scholars have been convinced by this view, the forgery explanation is not universally accepted, and debate continues about the authenticity of the Mar Saba letter and the Secret Gospel of Mark.[cite to Ehrman's "Lost Christianities", p. 70.]" Thoughts?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Contaldo80

Please discuss here before removing any more academic references. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Beskow, section Recent Discoveries

— "Professor Smith got upset about what I had written, threatening to sue for one million dollars in damages if the book was not immediately withdrawn, and the publisher yielded to the threat.", Blackwell Companion to Jesus ed. Delbert Burkett - 2011

I'm not sure whether you are looking for me to build consensus for my edits or approval. I shall assume good faith and suggest it is the former. But likewise I would ask that other editors similarly seek to build a compelling case for amendments. I note that several of my earlier edits have been gradually overturned. I fully acknowledge the right for this to happen, but I'm not yet convinced of the basis for dismissing Morton-Smith as a hoaxer. Sure you cite that Evans makes the point - but are Evans or Tov really historical heavyweights? The article now says that most mainstream scholars believe the letter to be a hoax. To support that addition I would find it helpful if you would list who these scholars are so we can judge whether they are the mainstream majority. I think it's best we leave out that sentence until then; and we should seek agreement on the talk page first please before re-inserting. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I already pointed out that our article was somewhat wrong, as Evans and Tov don't make a claim toward consensus (in fact, they say that before the color photos were published in 2000 there was much more room for debate). Their opinion, of course, is that this is almost absolutely a forgery by Smith. Above I demonstrated that Evans and Tov are indeed reliable sources. I also brought up Ehrman, who is undeniably a reliable source for this. Ehrman says, "scholars in increasing numbers have begun to suspect that it is [a forgery by a modern scholar]." However, he adds, "As far as I can tell, the jury is still out".

Your most recent edit just swapped one weasel word for another. What we need to say is that scholars increasingly think this gospel is a forgery by Smith, but that this isn't a universal view and debate continues. I believe the current version does this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But the point is they don't. You are making a spurious claim. Supporters for Morton Smith include important names such as Helmut Koester, Cyril Richardson, George MacRae, and Hugh Trevor-Roper. In addition the letter has itself been included in the standard edition of the Alexandrian father's writings since 1980. If you are going to say that "scholars increasingly think this gospel is a forgery" then you need to make it up. Are you arguing this from a faith position? Because if you are then may I remind you that the text doesn't say Jesus was homosexual, and we don't know whether it is a medieval forgery, a misunderstanding by Clement, or a corruption by the original sect. The contentious aspect as whether Jesus was a type of "magician". I also note your first reversion to my amendments.

In his introduction in The Complete Gospels, Stephen Patterson notes: "The handwriting can be dated to around 1750. Smith published the letter in 1973. Early discussion of it was marred by accusations of forgery and fraud, no doubt owing in part to its controversial comments. Today, however, there is almost unanimous agreement among Clementine scholars that the letter is authentic." Contaldo80 (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Make it up?" What? The passage is sourced to Bart Ehrman, who I'm sure you're familiar with. FWIW Erhman also reiterated this same thing again in his 2011 book Forged: Writing in the Name of God - basically, based on new developments, scholars increasingly believe the work is a forgery, though it's not universally accepted. Your edit fundamentally altered what the source actually says, and so had to be restored. As for Patterson, he wrote your quote in 1994, before the publication of the color photographs in 2000 and the spate of works since that time arguing that Secret Mark is a forgery. Things have changed.

And no, I'm not arguing from a "faith position", and have no idea why you would assume that based on the above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As a note, as recently as 2003 Charles W. Hendrick argued that the issue was a "stalemate" and that scholars should just accept the letter as authentic for the sake of moving forward on the subject.[1] This position was quickly - and politely - challenged by Ehrman.[2] Since then there have been more publications arguing for a forgery based on new developments, especially the Carlson and Jeffries books.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we're finally making some progress on this. It would have been reassuring for me to have seen the 'Journal of Early Christian Studies' before. This is a much more scholarly source than some that have floated around. I've had a look at the text and think I can live with it (although I don't know why we must use "color" and not "colour", but I guess Morton Smith was American so there is some logic...) Ideally it would be good to summarise and reflect Hendrick and Ehrman's conclusions somewhere in the text if we can. What you have said above summarises the current position most helpfully and the article would benefit from having it included somewhere. Apologies if I doubted your intentions - I have experienced a number of edit discussions in the past with editors who let religious considerations influence their judgement. It's made me wary. My only concern is where we say that Morton Smith was "reluctant" to produce the original. As far as I can gather he was never in a position to do so - it never belonged to him Contaldo80 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good, I think we've got something workable going; it's certainly better than before. We do need to be more clear about the current scholarly consensus regarding the hoax interpretation; it's kind of all over the place currently. On the spelling, I didn't even notice that at first. However, the article appears to have used American English since it was created back in 2004, so that's the variety we should stick with.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are still issue, in particularv with the introduction. The last line reads as though the vast majority believe it is a hoax and a few outliers still think its real. In fact, as Ehrman stated "The majority of scholars consulted were convinced that the letter was authentic, and a somewhat smaller majority agreed that the quotations of Secret Mark actually derived from a version of Mark" (Ehrman: 2003, pg 81). This has been discussed previously, but I believe the intro needs to be modified to give the correct appraisal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.140.2 (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A majority believe still believe the letter is genuine, but more and more are convinced it is a forgery, as Ehrman says elsewhere. That's what needs to be here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The current (Jan. 2018) Wikipedia entry shows a portrait of Ehrman and only mentions Ehrman as saying that there is no scholarly consensus, and: "Bart Ehrman stated that the situation still was the same as it was when Smith had summarized it in 1982, namely that a majority of scholars considered the letter to be authentic". It's relevant that Ehrman's own view is that it's a forgery as he says in the Comments section of his blog (https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-magician-members). I also somewhat remember reading him say somewhere that he believes that scholars' views tend to be now that the Letter was a forgery, but I could be confusing this with another statement. Rakovsky (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no list of individual scholars’ opinion on the authenticity of the letter and Secret Mark in the Wikipedia article – nor do I think there should be one. Regarding Ehrman, in the notes he is listed as one of three pro-forgery scholars who declined to write an article in BAR arguing for inauthenticity. And in the image text his opinion in 2003 is summoned as such, that he thought Smith might or might not have forged the letter. This is actually all he has said in formal writing – as far as I’m aware. This one is the closest: “I am not willing to say that Smith … forged the letter of Clement which he claimed to discover. My reasons should be obvious. As soon as I say that I am certain he did so, those pages cut from the back will turn up, someone will test the ink, and it will be from the eighteenth century! But maybe Smith forged it. – – – Or maybe this is a genuine letter by Clement of Alexandria, and there really were different versions of the Gospel of Mark available in ancient Alexandria, one of which was lost until modern times, when it was uncovered, in part, in an ancient letter in an ancient library of an ancient monastery.” (Bart D, Ehrman, Lost Christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew, 2003, p. 89). That was 16 years ago. Roger Viklund (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, recent removals on related bio Morton Smith restored

Academic/BAR source removals reverted, and POV comment "Academics from religiously-funded universities" - which was unsourced but more importantly doesn't seem to be true removed. Please discuss here since evidently related. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Fabulous

This is an exemplary article. Origin of the Eucharist should be lucky enough to attract such editing talent. Crossan says the naked man was nude for baptismal purposes. I'll get the cite. Eschoir (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Scott Brown as a source

I've noticed a suspiciously liberal sprinkling of Scott Brown's work in this article. I would suggest that such abundant use of his work, especially in the forgery section, is unwarranted. Brown is to date the only person whose dissertation is on the Secret Gospel of Mark. That means if it turns out to be a forgery, his dissertation is worthless. He has an extremely vested interest in promoting the authenticity of the text, and it would be devastating to his career if the document proved inauthentic. At the least, some mention of this fact should be made akin to pointing out Neusner's fallout with Smith. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that Brown should be downplayed. He is certainly a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and one of the most significant writers on the topic. The article needs to reflect all the significant viewpoints of scholars in relevant fields. I think the solution will be to rewrite that and other sections to properly incorporate these viewpoints and give them their appropriate weight. Ehrman's Lost Christianities has a good overview of the entire situation that will be useful here.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

While agreeing with the Ehrman and later sources being the way forward, there is an issue with over-citing of Scott G. Brown, it's unfortunate but the fact is that he did indeed invest the earlier part of his career in what now widely known to be a hoax, which has parallels with sources in many similar situations. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he's being over-cited. He's cited for the history of the manuscript after Morton, which isn't particularly controversial, and then mostly for his own attributed interpretation, which is certainly noteworthy. The article in general could be much better worded, though, and there are probably other parts of the debate we're not covering appropriately. This is the book to use.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Emmanuel Tov

Quite incredible to be adding " evangelical scholars such as Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov" - presumably it's to bolster the idea that anyone who thinks it is a forgery either by Smith or an earlier author to be viewed with discredit. As far as I'm aware Tov is Jewish, but in any case neither he nor Evans needs that in front of them. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It was added here, and yes, most of the edit is either incorrect, or leading. I've now restored the wording we hammered out on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If so, also this is wrong. “Subsequent study, including handwriting analysis of higher quality color photographs of the document, first published in 2000, revealed more possible evidence of forgery, leading scholars such as Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov to conclude the work is a hoax, with Smith being the most likely perpetrator.” Their conclusion was made from Carlson’s study and he did not have access to any “higher quality color photographs of the document”. His analysis was done on the printed reproductions, which must be seen as low quality. Roger Viklund (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's what the source says: "the recently published clear, color photographs of the document have given experts in the science of forgery detection the opportunity to analyze the document's handwriting... The evidence is compelling and conclusive. Smith wrote the text." They specifically refer to Carlson and Jeffrey's arguments.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Still, it is an uninformed source seemingly unable to realize that printed images are something quite different than actual photographs. And besides, it is doubtful that the colour photographs would be of higher quality than Smith’s b&w. They are fairly similar in quality.Roger Viklund (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like original research. Regarding Evans/Tov, the current section makes it appear Grafton (who?) in the Nation is writing after Evans Tov (2008), but is that the case? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by original research? Do you mean material “for which no reliable, published sources exist”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research If so, this is not “original research”. The problem of course with Wikipedia is that everyone can put forward their opinion and therefore this article points in different directions, even contradicting itself. The only real criteria seem to be opinions based on sources that are either peer reviewed or written by an authority. If the authority is obviously wrong, his opinion can anyway be put forward (such as Carlson studying high resolution photographs)

Regarding your changes on this page and on the one on the Mar Saba letter (why two articles?). You state that the consensus now is that the letter is a forgery and refer to Evans. But Ehrman claims in 2003 that the majority opinion is that the letter is authentic (Lost Christianities, p. 81). And the published papers pro and con seems to be quite evenly distributed. I believe the verdict is still out and that both positions have their defenders. Most scholars seems not to side with any position and most of course never have studied the subject.Roger Viklund (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia articles is to represent all significant viewpoints on the subject, in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. So yes, in any good article various, often contradicting viewpoints will appear. I have no idea if Evans and Tov are wrong on that particular point, but they are a reliable source by our standards, and the wording does accurately follow what they say. It may be enough to say that more and more scholars started backing the forgery argument especially once Smith died, based on the Ehrman book.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Peter Kirby?

In addition, Peter Kirby speculated that (if the letter is authentic) Clement may have been mistaken in his view that "Secret Mark" was a longer version of the Gospel of Mark written specifically for the spiritually elite. Instead, it may be the case that "Secret Mark" was actually the original version of the Gospel of Mark.

I'm wondering about the sourcing/notability of this content. Yes it's the conclusion of http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html from Crossan 1985, but why is Peter Kirby, the owner of the website, notable? Also the website doesn't appear to have been updated. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

weasel phrase?

Isn't "It is believed... " a phrase that is disapproved in Wikipedia writings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.205.88 (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

At the very least the statement doesn't reach the threshold of verifiability & should be restated.

I'm sure what the author means to say is, "The oldest accusation of forgery that anyone who's worked on this article has come up with is . . . ."

Someone needs to put this statement into "WikiSpeak." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77th Trombone (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Minor rephrasing needed in "Possible forgery" section: 2nd from last paragraph?

Concerning the 1st sentence in the next-to-last paragraph.
I felt confident enough that the original statement about "the Voss book" was meant to refer to the "Vossius" book, so I corrected that myself. I believe this sentence needs another correction, and I'd prefer someone more knowlegeable and/or with access to the Brown book in Note #43 evaluate & make the following change.
I suggest:

... comparing them to images of the Vossius book taken in 2000....

Should be edited to say:

... comparing them to Father Kallistos' color photographs of the Vossius book published in 2000....

77th Trombone (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Dead link to review

>A review of Jeffery's book by W. V. Harris, where these accusations are dismissed; Times Literary Supplement, October 19, 2007 available online (access date 28 Feb 2009)

I tried to find an archived copy (Archive.org) or new version on the Times Literary Supplement site, but I was unsuccessful. A tireless editor could probably find a working link or hard-copy text. Anonymous-232 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Cataloguing

With '...to photograph and re-cataloged them. However, the re-cataloging never happened...' has something been lost or should it be 'and re-catalogue'?

Is it time for the talk page to be archived? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV/balance

Considering that the subject of the article is only alleged to exist and that allegation relies entirely on the veracity of a document which has only been seen in photographic form, the article is far too credulous. I guess this is probably a mistaken attempt to maintain NPOV? Greater weight should be given to the many sceptical studies and books - the burden of proof is on Smith and his supporters, after all - than to the countervailing claims of authenticity. As is, a newcomer (like me) reading the article could easily get the impression that the Secret Gospel of Mark is more likely than not to have existed, which clearly isn't borne out by the research. 86.139.250.23 (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The document has not been seen "only in photographic form", though, but the independent verification of the manuscript's existence and second set of photographs of the manuscript were themselves unknown for 30 years - the which time most of the sceptical commentary was published, and which fact would have likely held a significant amount of weight in the outcome of the conclusions. All things being though as they be may, the forgery explanation does fail occham's razor when ALL of the details of all of the facts are considered (rather than cherry picking to emphasize the details that support a particular position and to gloss over the ones that do not). That is: ALL of the things that would have to have taken place in order for the document to have been a forgery are more improbable than all of the things that would be required to have happened in order for it to be authentic. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation: Jesus' anger with Salome and the women

The second unique passage of "Secret Mark" that the Mar Saba letter quotes says: "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." I am led to ask: What would be the purpose of the author of "Secret Mark" (forgery or not) be in composing this very brief passage? The only helpful one that I've come across (on the Early Writings forum), and the only one that makes sense to me, is that the author was portraying Jesus as being spiteful to, and rejecting women. There is no reason given why Jesus would reject the women in the text, it's not a favorable passage for gnostic sects that want to focus on women like Salome (since Jesus avoids the women in the text), but it does fit with a proposition that a forger created Secret Mark to portray Jesus as sexually drawn to men in creating a following and avoided bringing women into his collective with its sexual rituals. The Wikipedia article mentions: "Peter Jeffery argued that 'the letter reflected practices and theories of the twentieth century, not the second',[192] and that Smith wrote Clement's letter to Theodore with the purpose of creating 'the impression that Jesus practiced homosexuality'." Whatever the explanation, I think that the Wiki article should suggest explanations for this passage in Secret Mark. Rakovsky (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

An obvious explanation would be that these women originally were part of a much more extensive story in SGM and that we only have the fraction quoted by Clement and therefore cannot make sense of this particular scene. But if you suggest other explanations, can you say what they would be and who has suggested them (what author, book or article)? Roger Viklund (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ben Smith writes, in summarizing Stephen Carlson's argument that "Secret Mark" is designed for contemporary ears: "Then [after mentioning Jesus' night with the youth], in the very brief second excerpt from the secret gospel, Jesus is said to have rejected three women; with the homosexual overtones of the previous passage still echoing in the ears this rejection of the women sounds to the modern reader like a deliberate choice of individual sexual orientation."(http://www.textexcavation.com/secretmark.html) The Mar Saba says only about this passage "After, 'and he goes to Jericho,' it adds only, 'And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there, as well as his mother and Salome. And Jesus did not welcome them.'" So it doesn't appear that this mention of Jesus rejecting the women was part of a more extensive story in Clement's version of SGM. Presuming that Clement's version was the correct one, it's hard to understand why the author would include this very brief statement about rejecting women, except to indicate Jesus' general rejection of women. Granted, I suppose that one could propose that Secret Mark had other, separate passages laying out some explanation for Jesus' supposed anger to the women. Rakovsky (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t mean that there was more written about these women in this particular passage (SGM2). Since Clement obviously just refers to a specific part of the gospel, to answer the things asked by Theodoros, there was probably also more in SGM that he didn’t mention. There is no way of knowing how much more, but it could have been substantially more, and in those parts there could have been other stories told about these women (as you suggest, SGM could have "had other, separate passages laying out some explanation for Jesus' supposed anger to the women"). This is not an argument for anything, just a reminder that one should not try to make too much out of incomplete information.

Ben Smith wrote this not long after Carlson’s book came out in 2005 and since then a lot have happened, not least in the counter-arguments against Carlson’s book. But that’s another issue. Ben Smith’s web page would be of no real interest for the Wikipedia article, especially since it doesn’t have unique information not found elsewhere. And the things he mentions are covered in the Wikipedia article. Roger Viklund (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Interpretation: The raising of Lazarus in John and of the young man in Secret Mark

The Wikipedia entry says: "If the two verses in Mark preceding Secret Mark are included, both stories tell us that the disciples are apprehensive as they fear Jesus’ arrest. In each story it is the sister whose brother just died who approaches Jesus on the road and asks his help; she shows Jesus the tomb, which is in Bethany", etc. I understand that the raisings of Lazarus (John 11) and of the youth (Secret Mark) have enough parallels that one can appear to be based on the other. It would make Secret Mark look more legitimate if the relevant part of the Lazarus story in John matched up with the relevant parts of Canonical Mark plus Secret Mark. However, when I line up the relevant texts, it doesn't look this way to me. Compare Mark 10:33-34 (ie. the part right before Secret Mark) with John 10-11: Mark 10: 33. Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: 34. And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again. John 10: 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. ... 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, 40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.

To me this doesn't look really like the same timing and events in the two canonical passages: In Mark, Jesus is going to Jerusalem and warns that He will be killed there, whereas in John 10-11, Jesus is already at Jerusalem and He escapes the threats there of being killed. So while I can see a very loose parallelism (because topics include Jerusalem and the killing of Jesus), and I see how Secret Mark's made-up story about raising the youth could have been a reworked version of the raising of Lazarus, I don't see the close parallelism in the two canonical passages that the wikipedia entry does. I don't see the closeness, because the topics of Jerusalem and the killing of Jesus are major recurrent themes in different parts of the gospels. A forger could have just picked a place in canonical Mark where the two themes came together and inserted a reworked version of Lazarus' story because Lazarus' story in John is preceded by the same themes. Rakovsky (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If the Gospel of John was in broad accordance with the other gospels, that would be a much stronger argument..however, the extent of which the John gospel strays from the others is far too great for this to be a very meaningful argument against authenticity

Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Coincidences with or Inspirations from other literature

Whether one considers "Secret Mark" to be authentic or the "forgery of the century", as Jacob Neusner put it, one of the most interesting aspects for me about the text and the story of its discovery are the coincidences that they share with earlier literature. One might explain the coincidences by proposing that the 20th c. literature served as inspiration for a forgery by Morton or by someone associated with him:
(A) In The Mystery of Bar Saba by James H. Hunter (1940), an British detective, "Moreton", opposes the efforts of Nazis to plant a fake document at Bar Saba monastery that would undermine Christianity, whereas in real life, Morton Smith later claimed to have discovered the Mar Saba letter that in the view of many readers (including myself) would tend to be unsettling for its description of alleged homosexual occult early Christian rituals, and Morton Smith did go on to write the book Jesus the Magician that would reference the Letter briefly and also tend to undermine traditional Christian views.
(B) The Letter that M. Smith presented had been written into a copy of Isaac Vossius’ 1646 printed edition of Ignatius of Antioch's letters, which Bruce Chilton noted is itself relevant to the issue of forgery. Chilton may have referred to how there is a forged, Arian version of Ignatius' letters.
(C) In 1936, Otto Stahlin published a compendium of Clement of Alexandria's vocabulary and phrases, making it more practical for a later forger to draft documents and misatribute them to Clement of Alexandria.
(D) Angus Wilson's 1956 novel Anglo-Saxon Attitudes narrates the false discovery of a phallic fertility symbol in the grave of the seventh-century bishop Eorpwald, a disciple of the English Archbishop Theodore. In the novel, an archeologist planted the symbol to discredit the site's excavator and other scholars. According to Philip Jenkins, “much of the book depicts English gay subculture... By faking the discovery, [the archeologist] was subverting the heroic image that the modern-day church has of its founders... To a large degree, he succeeded, as scholars so uniformly accepted these bizarre claims and integrated them into their understanding of medieval faith.” (https://www.apocryphicity.ca/2014/04/19/philip-jenkins-new-source/). If M. Smith forged the Mar Saba Letter a few years after the novel was published, it could explain the source of the bishop "Theodore" in the letter. Tony Burke notes that "Jenkins sees a number of parallels between Wilson’s novel and Smith’s discovery: a forgery planted in an early Christian site, the association with the name Theodore, underground controversial clandestine practices, and accusations of sorcery (against Eorpwald in the novel, and against Jesus in Smith’s monograph Jesus the Magician)"(https://www.apocryphicity.ca/2014/04/19/philip-jenkins-new-source/), although Burke thinks that the coincides are unrelated to M. Smith's discovery.
(E) According to Andrew Criddle, in The Codex (published 1954 in a journal and separately in 1955), the scholar C.H. Roberts suggested that a very early manuscript of Mark played a central role in the beginning of Egyptian Christianity. A few years later in 1958, M. Smith made his alleged discovery of the Mar Saba Letter, which described Egyptian Christians as using "Secret Mark". Decades later in The Birth of the Codex (1983), Roberts largely retracted his theory of the early version of Mark.

More direct potential sources, references, or parallels to the content in Secret Mark include:
(A) The canonical gospels' stories of Lazarus' raising, the rich young man, the shrouded youth in Gethsemane and at the tomb, and the Beloved Disciple. I understand that there is mystery with the stories of the shrouded youth and the Beloved Disciple, but I don't find them necessarily and unintentionally "incoherent" like the Wikipedia entry suggests. I think that gospel authors sometimes left elements of their story deliberately mysterious or unclear, like the story of the water carriers at Jerusalem's gates.
(B) According to Stephen Huller, Irenaeus (late 2nd c.) knew of Secret Mark (http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2009/11/day-of-recompense-as-fulfillment-of.html)
(C) Origen (late 2nd-early 3rd c.) cited the Clementine Recognitions as telling a story of Clement of Rome taking Barnabas and educating him overnight in the mysteries, IIRC, according to a discussion on the Early Writings forum.
(D) Nonnus of Panopolis (late 4th-5th c.) may have construed the Staphylus/Botrys episode based on something like Secret Mark, according to K. Spanoudakis, as Roger Viklund mentioned earlier in this talk section.
(E) Y. Kuchinsky suggested that 2 fourteenth-century sources by Abu-'l-Barakat and a tenth-century writing by Macarius show knowledge of Secret Mark, as R. Viklund mentioned also.
(F) Shem Tov's version of Matthew (c.1385) has places that resemble passages from Secret Mark, as R. Viklund has mentioned.
(G) Whereas the typical early Christian model for initiation seemed to be a catechumenate period, followed by water baptism, "Secret Mark" seems to present a motif where the young man is raised from the dead out of a tomb and then learns secret mysteries from Jesus. This motif reminds me of Freemasonry's ritual initiation, where the initiate is "raised a mason" out of a coffin and then given secret teachings. (See eg.: Death, Burial and Resurrection in the Masonic Lodge, http://www.emfj.org/dbr.htm) Rakovsky (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Section move proposal

Following on from this AfD, I propose moving the sections of this article relating to the discovery and authenticity of the letter (namely, #Discovery and #Debate on authenticity and authorship) to the article Mar Saba letter, replacing each section with a short summary and a {{Main}} hatnote linking to the other article. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t notice the discussion about the deletion of the Mar Saba letter. If I had I would have voted for deletion. There is basically nothing in that article that isn’t covered in this article. And, since the letter and the Secret Gospel are so intertwined, you cannot deal with one without dealing with the other. Moving those parts from this article will ruin this article. The Mar Saba article, on the other hand, is outdated and contains errors, which thereby would leave two articles incomplete. Roger Viklund (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Scott Brown vs. the World

The whole article seems very partisan and rather than informing it seems to want to demonstrate that the Secret Gospel of Mark is authentic.

I've noticed an incredible abundance of quotes from Scott G. Brown. Why is his work so much cited? His Wikipedia page doesn't say much about him, and from what little I understand all his work is based on the Secret Gospel of Mark, it seems to me a far from neutral (and authoritative) source.

Consider this paragraph as an example:

"According to Criddle, the letter had too many hapax legomena, words used only once before by Clement, in comparison to words never before used by Clement, and Criddle argued that this indicates that a forger had "brought together more rare words and phrases" found in the authentic writings of Clement than Clement would have used.[193] The study has been criticized for, among other things, focusing on "Clement's least favorite words" and for the methodology itself, which turns out to be " unreliable in determining authorship.""

It seems to imply that the study has been criticized by a certain number of scholars, but then on seeing the quote he has only been criticized by Brown. Each time it is like this, a scholar proposes a hypothesis and then Brown's criticism immediately afterwards.

I think that if Brown's criticisms are not shared by other scholars then they should be removed. AngryKeyboard (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you actually, especially in the section where Brown is used as essentially a per contra source. He definitely merits mention, but this is a bit much. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Case for authenticity of the secret Mark (says nothing about the letter)

This case study came up rather unexpectedly. In the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” there is an extensive foray into the history and composition of the canonical Gospels. According to the conclusions of that research Mark and Matthew were written while main participants of the events in question — Peter and James, brother of Jesus ­— were still alive and actively participated in the writings. Luke and John, on the contrary, were written when no eyewitnesses and participants were alive any longer. That was the basis for the explanation why certain stories were excluded from the Mark and Matthew, even so they were available from the very beginning. Those stories were simply censored, edited out by eyewitnesses because of their damning evidential value, their giveaway in the narrative.

One of those stories is an episode describing the resurrection of Lazarus. When the argument was presented to the counterpart on Facebook, he recalled the story described in the letter by Clement of Alexandria that implied that the episode similar to resurrection of Lazarus was once present in the Gospel of Mark, but was edited out and considered to be a part of quoted, but not discovered “spiritual,” extended (or secret) Gospel of Mark that at some point was edited down to the canonical Mark that is commonly known. General agreement among scholars is that the story from the letter of Clement described the same event that was described in the Gospel of John. Contrary to that opinion the arguments provided in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” point to the opposite direction. The narrative in the letter of Clement describes a similar, but totally unrelated event in regard to the event known as resurrection of Lazarus.

Before proceeding to the details, considerations of the framework need to be declared.

1. This work, while weighted considerably on the side of authenticity of the letter, will not make such a claim.
2. The existence of “extended” Mark and its relation to the redacted Mark (basic premise) considered to be true.
3. The description of the "resurrection" of Lazarus is considered to be a description of the real event, being accurate in details and circumstances.
4. The description of the "resurrection" of an unnamed young man in the fragment that was eventually excluded from “extended” Mark is also a description of the real event that is accurate in detail.
5. The rest of the fragment of the letter, not directly related to resurrection, will not be evaluated, if anything, for readability purposes.

Here the story of the resurrection of Lazarus as described in the Gospel of John with commentary from the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” It is a part of chapter 80. English Standard Version (ESV) is used for quotations from the Gospels.

People casually think that the reality show was invented a decade or so ago… Igor believed (not 100%) that it was “Survivor” … Here the reality show, Holy Land style, and the name “Survivor” fits just about right!

John 11:1 - 44 (ESV)

The Death of Lazarus

11 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”

5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” 8 The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?” 9 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.” 11 After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” 12 The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died, 15 and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” 16 So Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

17 Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. 18 Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off, 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother. 20 So when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, but Mary remained seated in the house. 21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”

Jesus Weeps

28 When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying in private, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.” 29 And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha had met him. 31 When the Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there. 32 Now when Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled. 34 And he said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus wept. 36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” 37 But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man also have kept this man from dying?”

Jesus Raises Lazarus

38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” 44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

It is a carefully planned operation to “regain ground” in Judea… It reads like a movie script… because it is!... Just another spectacular performance inspired by John the Baptist! Igor would not even bother pointing out the glaring details… As a collection of independent facts, it is puzzling, but a large organizational entity encompassing people and locations making it clear as day… And Jewish tradition of speedy funeral was definitely handy in setting up the stage. And one more important detail is that Lazarus is put to rest in the tomb. Tombs were usually only for well off people. Lazarus was a beggar. If Lazarus was to be buried in the class appropriate shallow grave cinematographic quality special effects would be required to stage his resurrection.

That was the end of the quote from chapter 80 (chapter 80 continued to related matters that are not relevant to this consideration).

For the purpose of this narrative John 11.45 and 46 are also useful.

45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, 46 but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done

What is also pointed out in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt,” is that some of Jesus' “performances” were carefully scripted and actual written script was produced, not unlike one in theatrical productions or moviemaking. The scripts were collected and saved (and their collection referred to as the “signs” gospel), and used while writing canonical Gospels, along with other early written documents – depositions and field reports. Most obviously script, once created, could have been re-used if needed, and tweaked to circumstances. "Resurrection" of Lazarus is a complicated act and script most likely existed for this kind of performance.

Another observation was noted in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” When Jesus had to interact with people he did not know and never met, verbal (or combined, like climbing a tree) handshake was implemented. The kind of event that is prominent in the Gospels is when a beggar who was contracted to be “healed” by Jesus greets him with code words “Jesus, the son of David.” Most obviously, when Jesus encounters a person he knows the verbal handshake was not needed.

The next is the quote about the resurrection from the letter of Clement of Alexandria utilizing translation by Morton Smith.

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follow the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section.

What is obvious about this event (described in the letter) and the event extensively described in Gospel of John is that both events possibly share the same basic script. Grieving sister is asking to bring back to life the recently deceased brother. But this is where similarities end. The details, each and every of them, are as different as they could be. As for the presence of the second sister, Martha, in the resurrection of Lazarus, the body of scholarship exists that consistently demonstrates that airdropping Martha into the narrative is a later interpolation, and originally there was only one sister – Mary. There are two plausible opinions about which Mary is playing the role of the “sister” in the resurrection of Lazarus. But regardless of if this is the same woman that anointed Jesus and wiped his feet with her own hair as mentioned in John 11.2, or that is she, however speculative it is, was a Mary Magdalene herself, Jesus knew her, and verbal handshake was unnecessary. Whether or not Lazarus is really her brother, or if they both pretend to be related, is unclear and not really relevant. According to the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Mary Magdalene mostly did logistics, but apparently, she could have risen to the occasion and showcase some performing talent that she usually only applied for clandestine work. Aside from the general premise, similarities between the two performances taper off very quickly. The “sister” from extended Mark is someone who Jesus did not know. She had to use a verbal handshake for identification. Jesus most obviously knew Mary (Magdalene?), and no identification aid was needed or mentioned in the story from the Gospel of John.

The story from the Gospel of John is carefully staged and choreographed, probably to avoid suspicions that Jesus is orchestrating the whole thing. The story from extended Mark presented as spontaneous, even so both narratives describe carefully prepared and staged events. Both Jesus and disciples that accompanied him at the moment are described as displeased with the appearance of the woman in extended Mark. That echoed with one of the variants of Mark when Jesus was angry with a beggar who had leprosy in one of the variants of Mark (Codex Bezae). In both cases displeasure of Jesus could have something to do with timing, as speculated in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” about the episode with the leper. It looks like only Jesus and some of the disciples were present when resurrection in Mark occurred, and that obviously was not a targeted audience for such a carefully prepared and elaborate performance. It could be that Jesus expected to attract some wider audience, some people who would be compelled to follow him after listening to his pitch on the market square or in synagogue. The incorrect timing (too early) is easy to extrapolate from the description of the events in Mark. While Lazarus was patiently waiting in the tomb until Jesus and Mary (acting as Lasarus’ sister) would do their parts, the unnamed participant in extended Mark actually started to panic, expressed audible discomfort, and generally “came alive” without regard for the proper timing. It might be that he suffered from the foul odors/gases, had lack of oxygen, or suffered from onset of claustrophobia. When his co-conspirator “sister” discovered that her “brother” was shrieking from the tomb she did the only sensible thing to do – found Jesus and coerced him to speed up timing of the performance. She could have freed her “brother” from the tomb by herself, but that would mean forfeiting the money (if any monetary agreement was in place), or she might have a problem moving the stone because of physical limitations. It is possible that the property where resurrection in Mark supposed to have taken place was adjacent to a place where Jesus was about to give his speech, and “sister” dashed there to fetch him ASAP. It is very apparent that the story in John does not exhibit that kind of urgency. A long interaction between Jesus and “sister” taking place for the purpose to make the action more believable for the spectators. The spectators or witnesses also defined differently in extended Mark and John. In mark it is only disciples – nobody else is mentioned. In John there is the presence of other people who are unaware of the outcome. Naturally, in Mark remarkable nothing happens in the aftermath of resurrection – Jesus stays in the house enjoying hospitality, until he removed or compelled to leave to meet James (the Just, brother of Jesus) and John the Baptist who is following the actions of his subordinates closely (that remark obviously re-enforces conviction in the authenticity of the material attributed to the extended Mark. Identification of supposed disciples James and John with James the Just and John the Baptist was made in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” in relation to other episodes). In the Gospel of John episode everything is not as peachy as intended. Apparently, some of the people in attendance figured that they witnessed a farce and submitted complaints to the pharisees/religious authorities. Jesus had to leave town and hide somewhere (John the Baptist is probably under arrest at that point). Whole thing is very risky, and Jesus is under the umbrella of (justifiable) suspicion. In summary, two stories diverge considerably in the audience and aftermath/outcome. Even more divergence is in the description of the act of resurrection. Lazarus, a hardened beggar, stayed put until it was time to come out, and came out in an orderly and dignified manner. The counterpart entombed in the story described in extended Mark was in a state of panic and produced sounds even before Jesus came to the proximity of the tomb. While the writer of the Gospel pretends that an entombed person came alive from the mere presence of Jesus, it is as fishy as it can be. Because help was not readily available Jesus had to wrestle with the stone by himself and pull the entombed individual outside by the hand. The scene is pitiful and unconvincing. But because there are no outside witnesses Jesus just stays lodging with formerly entombed for a few days.

The takeaway of this piece of comparative literature is devastating for the image of Jesus. The only small consolation is that it is a deprivation of John the Baptist (who apparently was around when the scheme was tried the first time), and not Jesus himself that started this whole resurrection of the dead person travesty. Gchernya (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:not a forum. You do not need to prove that something is true to include it in the article- and should not! You need to provide a citation to a WP:reliable source that makes that claim.

TypistMonkey (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman thinks it's a forgery, but it is still a disputed matter, there is no academic consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not qualified to throw the opinion about the letter, but the fragment has sister/brother scheme that was repeated in the resurrection of Lazarus, and verbal handshake (Son of David). If someone knew that much to forge the fragment, he would likely to know about the whole deception. "Mark" however, knew about the reality show, and was (obviously) hesitant to put in the Gospel such outrageous material. He did put Jarius daughter in, but that can be interpreted as delayed resuscitation (it was really a theater production - maybe performed, or maybe just scripted). Mark did not know if the readers will be that gullible as to accept any resurrection of already buried body as a fact of life, also he had both Lazarus and Secret Mark fragments in front of him (from the dossier of Jesus). As well known "Mark" only wrote a short ending of Gospel of Mark, out the very same credibility concern. When use of Matthew and Luke showed that readers of the Gospels able to "eat" resurrection of the buried body, someone wrote a long ending of Mark. "Mark" used fragment known as "Secret Mark" as promotional material for his, now canonic Gospel. Secret part was supposed to demonstrate to a few chosen ones (like church leaders) that Jesus is even more powerful than canonical Mark portrayed him to be. Just marketing gimmick. On the separate note, "Mark", during the writing of his hostile communication replaced John the Baptist and James the Just with disciples James and John. Protective swordsmen Simon/Peter and Judas/Juda kept their names, but not the roles in the story (described as another two disciples), and Jesus had a code-name, Joses. Mary Magdalene was an operation supervising officer of many talents. Gchernya (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTESSAY. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)